Chelain R Goodman1, Austin J Sim2, Elizabeth B Jeans3, Justin D Anderson4, Sarah Dooley5, Ankit Agarwal6, Karen Tye7, Ashley Albert8, Erin F Gillespie9, Rahul D Tendulkar10, Clifton D Fuller11, Brian D Kavanagh12, Shauna R Campbell10. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: crgoodman@mdanderson.org. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami, Miami, Florida. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California. 8. Radiation Oncology, Arizona Center for Cancer Care, Peoria, Arizona. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 10. Department of Radiation Oncology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 11. Department of Radiation Oncology, Division of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 12. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, Aurora, Colorado.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report trends in the number and types of applicants and matched trainees to radiation oncology in comparison to other specialties participating in the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) between 2010 and 2020. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data from the NRMP and Electronic Residency Application System (ERAS) were obtained for 18 medical specialties between 2010 and 2020. We assessed the numbers and types of applicants and matched trainees relative to available positions in the NRMP and Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP). RESULTS: In the 2020 NRMP, 122 US MD senior graduates preferentially ranked radiation oncology, a significant decrease from a median of 187 between 2010 to 2019 (interquartile range [IQR], 170-192; P < .001). Across all 18 specialties, radiation oncology experienced the greatest declines in the 2020 NRMP cycle relative to 2010 to 2019, in both the number of ERAS applicants from the United States and Canada (-31%) and the percentage of positions filled by US MD or DO senior graduates (-28%). Of 189 available positions, 81% (n = 154) filled in the NRMP prior to the SOAP, of which 65% (n = 122) were "matched" by US MD senior graduates who preferentially ranked radiation oncology as their top choice of specialty, representing a significant decrease from a median of 92% between 2010 to 2019 (IQR, 88%-94%; P = .002). The percentages of radiation oncology programs and positions unfilled in the NRMP prior to the SOAP were significantly increased in 2020 compared with 2010 to 2019 (programs: 29% vs 8% [IQR, 5%-8%; P < .001]; positions: 19% vs 4% [IQR, 2%-4%; P <.001]). Despite >99% (n = 127 of 128) of US MD or DO senior applicants preferring radiation oncology successfully matching to a radiation oncology position in the 2020 NRMP, 16 of 35 remaining unfilled positions were filled via the SOAP. Radiation oncology was the top user of the SOAP across all specialties participating in the 2020 NRMP, filling 15% of total positions versus a median of 0.9% (IQR, 0.3%-2.3%; P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: The supply of radiation oncology residency positions now far exceeds demand by graduating US medical students. Efforts to nullify a market correction revealed by medical student behavior via continued reliance on the SOAP to fill historical levels of training positions may not be in the best of interest of trainees, individual programs, or the specialty as a whole.
PURPOSE: To report trends in the number and types of applicants and matched trainees to radiation oncology in comparison to other specialties participating in the National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) between 2010 and 2020. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data from the NRMP and Electronic Residency Application System (ERAS) were obtained for 18 medical specialties between 2010 and 2020. We assessed the numbers and types of applicants and matched trainees relative to available positions in the NRMP and Supplemental Offer and Acceptance Program (SOAP). RESULTS: In the 2020 NRMP, 122 US MD senior graduates preferentially ranked radiation oncology, a significant decrease from a median of 187 between 2010 to 2019 (interquartile range [IQR], 170-192; P < .001). Across all 18 specialties, radiation oncology experienced the greatest declines in the 2020 NRMP cycle relative to 2010 to 2019, in both the number of ERAS applicants from the United States and Canada (-31%) and the percentage of positions filled by US MD or DO senior graduates (-28%). Of 189 available positions, 81% (n = 154) filled in the NRMP prior to the SOAP, of which 65% (n = 122) were "matched" by US MD senior graduates who preferentially ranked radiation oncology as their top choice of specialty, representing a significant decrease from a median of 92% between 2010 to 2019 (IQR, 88%-94%; P = .002). The percentages of radiation oncology programs and positions unfilled in the NRMP prior to the SOAP were significantly increased in 2020 compared with 2010 to 2019 (programs: 29% vs 8% [IQR, 5%-8%; P < .001]; positions: 19% vs 4% [IQR, 2%-4%; P <.001]). Despite >99% (n = 127 of 128) of US MD or DO senior applicants preferring radiation oncology successfully matching to a radiation oncology position in the 2020 NRMP, 16 of 35 remaining unfilled positions were filled via the SOAP. Radiation oncology was the top user of the SOAP across all specialties participating in the 2020 NRMP, filling 15% of total positions versus a median of 0.9% (IQR, 0.3%-2.3%; P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: The supply of radiation oncology residency positions now far exceeds demand by graduating US medical students. Efforts to nullify a market correction revealed by medical student behavior via continued reliance on the SOAP to fill historical levels of training positions may not be in the best of interest of trainees, individual programs, or the specialty as a whole.
Authors: Awad A Ahmed; Emma B Holliday; Curtiland Deville; Reshma Jagsi; Bruce G Haffty; Lynn D Wilson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2015-10-08 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jessica M Schuster; Hina Saeed; Lindsay L Puckett; Jean M Moran; Krisha Howell; Charles Thomas; Shannon Offerman; Gita Suneja; Reshma Jagsi Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-03-09
Authors: Malcolm D Mattes; Curtiland Deville; Raymond B Mailhot Vega; Claire Y Fung; Gita Suneja; John W Shumway; Mudit Chowdhary; Chirag Shah; James E Bates; Pranshu Mohindra; Malika L Siker; Karen M Winkfield; Neha Vapiwala; Trevor J Royce Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-11-03